Talk Elections

look at it this way, they claim to be all about being against initiating force against other people but yet favor things which allow corporations/other non-governmental groups to be able to initiate as much force as they want against the population without any restrictions.   

The question is - who would you rather be initiating force - an impersonal conglomerating corporation, or an impersonal democratically elected governing authority?

A libertarian would be quick to say that neither should be forcing anyone to do anything in a capitalist society, because we can simply choose another company. If the government is not regulating commerce to avoid monopolies, how is any one conglomeration of business going to avoid being a de-facto government?

Disclaimer: sooo drunk right now lol

Would prefer neither but trust corps less than the state due to the government being at least in theory semi-accountable.

I would challenge you to show ONE libertarian say that private groups/individuals are free to force others. Libertarianism advocates the non-agression principle, stating that no individual or group can initiate force against another individual or group, and we consistantly apply this to government as well. Explain to me the consistency of your theory in thinking that theft, murder, and slavery are illegal for individuals but legal for a monopolistic organization?

What are some ways companies use force against the population?

The State does it:  things are arranged so that all productive resources are 'owned' by a tiny minority.  The majority is thus prevented from access to sustenance unless this minority allows it, which they do, typically, in exchange for the labour of the serf. 

The essential source of their power to order the serf about is, clearly, due to the force that the State exerts, and has always exerted, upon their behalf.  If any serf tries to revolt, he is placed in prison or killed.  Many libertarians have difficulty understanding all this because they have a complete lack of a sense of historical context, and assume that the status quo of inequality of access to State power is 'natural'.

All ideologies are.

A fact ideologues tend to ignore.

Especially that one.

Opebo, you seem to have a hard time understanding that libertarianism isn't feudalism or corparatism.

If this is the best answer I get I won't be surprised.

I can't speak for the original posters but for me it depends on what one means by 'force'. If we're talking about hard power then I would say that companies rarely exercise that - on occasions but these are rare - but if it is a question of soft power then undoubtedly companies can exercise a great degree of force.

What the funk does that mean?  Again, what are some ways companies use force against the population?  Soft or hard?

Apologies, by hard and soft power I did not mean them in the way Joseph Nye did when he originally coined the term 'soft power'. What I meant was, companies rarely use physical or military force against the population but they will often use their economic clout. So for instance take a natural monopoly such as the provision of an electricity grid or water grid. Given their statuses as natural monopolies, it is easy for a company to assert its economic might by raising prices and the population has no choice but to acquiesce to the price rises because most would have difficulty functioning without running water or electricity. They have a choice in the matter still, but it is one that is limited by the economic power of the company.

Of course, one could also talk about banks foreclosing on people which would technically involve the application of force but is brought about as a result of breaching contract.

Right, the only time companies have any power over the population is when the state allows it (or forces it).  As normal, the free'r the market, the better.

I wouldn't say that. I don't believe that natural monopolies are necessarily government created. Certainly in many cases they have been, but I don't think the two go hand in hand automatically.

Of course I could argue that the application of what Nye meant by soft power - the ability to attract and persuade - allowed companies also to assert some degree of force by helping to define fashionability through advertising and branding, but that would be a far more complex issue and would involve a different form of force.

Of course, companies always have some degree of power over those who work for them.

Certainly corporations and individuals, when not prevented from doing so by government, can be just as tyrranical as government can. That is a definite flaw in pure libertarian logic, though obviously most libertarians don't support anarchy, and there are more shades of gray than the Libertarian party would like us to believe within the ideology.

I'm more of a social libertarian than an economic one, but riddle me this:

) Aren't even the most extreme of libertarians, like Ayn Rand, supportive of a judiciary system and an army?
) Don't most economic libertarians support government regulations against corporate abuses, monpolies, price-rigging, and so on?

I think most libertarians are not guilty of anything crazier than most Republicans and Democrats already believe, although accepting part of each ideology and rejecting the rest.  Few libertarians, if any, believe that corporations are inherently benevolent institutions that should be granted as much power as possible.

Of course.  That should be one of the govts few duties, keeping us protected from each other.  How do you think libertarians plan on protecting our Freedoms, everybody having a bigger gun than his neighbor?  I thought only ignorant people thought that of libertarians.No, it's a flaw in how libertarian logic is percieved.I don't think a libertarian has ever assumed every libertarian is the same.  Hell, it's the probably one of the biggest things holding us down right now.  It's the non-libertarians that are always trying to paint us all the same shade of yellow (and it's never the shade of yellow most libertarians agree with, it's always the brightest, most anoying yellow.).

Being an extreme libertarian myself, there are the anarcho-capitalists like myself who support privatization of all government services, or at the very least allowing individuals to secede from the government. Many people at the Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org/) follow this line of thinking.


Here (http://www.independent.org/issues/search.asp?subID=3) is a good place to look. Corporate abuses wold be rare in a true free-market economy, as any corparate wrongdoing would lose customers. Monopolies would be near non-existant in a free-market economy as well, since people would be free to open competing businesses. Only the iron fist of government coercion can keep a monopoly existant. Price-rigging couldn't happen either, since any natural monopoly overcharging would face competition.

Not true. Local monopolies would be plentiful, just as they are now, because with local monopolies the services they provide can't be provided by multiple companies in the same area for logistical reasons. Larger monopolies can still exist as well and can use their influence to prevent start-ups from succeeding. There's also the matter of cartels.

Corporate abuses would be rare in a perfect free-market economy but perfect competition is a complete pipe-dream; it requires perfect knowledge on the part of both producer and consumer which is simply impossible to achieve. Given this problem, it is entirely sensible that government should exist to regulate the market and ensure that corporations do not abuse their power.

It's also naive to suggest that monopolies wouldn't exist in a perfect free market because people could open rivals because your point completely ignores prohibitive entry costs into certain industries. As I have frequently pointed out, things like road networks and water piping are natural monopolies because the entry-barriers to competition are prohibitively high. The fact that there would eventually be a price ceiling hardly prevents price rigging as that ceiling would be almost astronomical.

But your anarcho-capitalism is. At other times, I've showed what your total freedom would mean: namely, a lack of freedom for all but the privileged few.

Because of the lack of perfect knowledge on the part of producer and consumer, consumer reporters would act as middle-men to help give consumers the facts they need. Also, it would be completely hypocritical for a coercive monopoly to be regulating to make sure monopolies don't form.

Because of those entry costs, natural monopolies aren't going to charge any more than the entry cost for a new business would be. For example, if the bottled water company is a natural monopoly (we'll call it Company A), and bottling water costs $1/bottle, but entry costs are $5, the prices for bottled water will not reach $6, because at that point, it would become profitable for a competitor to enter the bottled water business. Even then, it would be profitable for a competitor if they were to look into the long-term. If Company A currently charges $4/bottle, then even though it will cost a competitor $6 to enter initially, , he would gain enough customers to ofset that by selling bottled water at $3.50/bottle. Thus, natural monopolies cannot be exploitive for purely economic reasons.

Cartels would also be economically inefficient in a free society, because any cartel artificially raising prices will be subject to non-cartel competition able to make profits by selling that good at a lower price.


No, in feudalism serfs lack freedom of opportunity, distinctly different from capitalism. In corporatism/fascism, corparations are able to get political favors from the government, impossible in government if they do not have the authority to do such things.

Without government protection, there is nothing to stop slavery, which is a total lack of freedom. Though this may be uncommon in industrialized areas, wage slavery would be the norm.

You are aware of the fact that in a free market those cartels can drive any competition that refuses to join out of business, right? It's especially easy for start ups. Since you're overcharging and making lots of money most of the time, cartel members would have extra money to spare in case of emergency. If you get a start-up trying to compete, just lower the price of your goods temporarily to a price lower than the new guy could possibly offer and wait until he goes under from lack of business. You've got the extra money and you can outlast him. Once he's gone raise prices again. It's really that simple.

What if Bill Gates gets into your market?

First of all, nobody with a gun is going to become a slave. Second, if the "Civil" War proved anything, its that slavery is no institution to base your economy on. you will get much better quality labor if it is voluntary. Third, slavery would not be permitted in a libertarian society, so your point is moot and a straw man. Next time you criticize my arguments, make sure the claim is valid.

Frankly, Straha's initial argument is asinine. Libertarianism does not advocate corporate control of the populace. Its emphasize is on government and its regulation of the economy. I don't see how a free market automatically equals monopoly and a corporatist state. Like any ideology, libertarianism at the most extreme could be seen as the exercise of one ideal to the exclusion of all others. However, in reality libertarianism does not exist in a vacuum and it is certainly countered by other points of view. It does not counter itself because the ideal of person freedom is consistent throughout the ideology.

To start on a personal note, it seems that for a libertarian, you sure like to defend government intervention, Mr. Dibble.

Turning to your argument. First of all, that strategy would require you to take customers as imbeciles. Do you really think customers are going to continue to buy goods from companies that continue to raise and lower their prices to make it inconvienient for them? Second, if the cartel lowers their prices below the market level to lure customers away, they are losing a profit on those goods. Third, if a cartel lowers their prices to make their competitor leave, the competitor can innovate his produce so it is superior in quality to the cartel's product. Therefore, customers would be more willing to buy the competitor's product, and the cartel would have to dissolve if they wanted to stay in business. Any good entrepeneur will be willing to take risks like that.

And you often seem more like an anarchist than a libertarian given the completely ludicrous positions you often espouse. Libertarianism recognizes the need for a government in many areas, just in a more limited fashion than most other political ideologies. If you find the fact that I don't ignore reality and pragmatism as being un-libertarian then you can continue to live in a fantasy.


If it's something they need or want badly enough, yeah they would. Oh, sure, you might get a few people who will think long-term, but not enough. Most people on the other hand will buy cheap in the short term even if they might be losing in the long term - hell, they do that right now. The whole "buy American" thing didn't work out, did it?


Yes, but only temporarily in order to drive those attempting competition out of business so they can resume overpricing.


Nothing says the cartel can't do the same. Hell, they'd be motivated to do so anyways - producing their product for less means even more profit when they can overcharge, and members that produce at higher quality would get more customers.

And for some products you can't really increase quality. The gas you pump into your car is largely the same regardless of what station you buy it at for instance.

Firstly, it would be impossible for these consumer reporters to give consumers all the facts they need because it is impossible for them to attain perfect knowledge. Secondly, where do these consumer reporters come from? Seems to me that this system is one that is easy to corrupt; how do you decide between competing consumer reporters? Government should regulate because it is the representative of society whereas businesses are the representatives of their shareholders.


You're assuming incredibly low entry costs there. I am talking more about things like utilities where the entry costs are astronomical; how expensive would it be to lay a completely alternative pipe grid to provide water to everyone?

Equally, you have to consider problems such as space; not only is an entirely alternative road network prohibitively expensive, there's also no space to build one. If I own a city's roads I can charge whatever I want for using them because there won't be an alternative system going up. Firstly there wouldn't be space and secondly they would have to cross my roads at one point and I could simply refuse the company the right to do that.


Slavery would not be permitted? Hang on a second, in the other thread you just said that if you breach someone else's natural rights you forfeit yours to them. Now that sounds an awful lot like slavery to me, particularly given that you believe if you kill someone then your life becomes the property of their relatives. That sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.

Do I prioritize individual liberty? Yes
Do I seek to minimize/eliminate the state? Yes
Therefore, I qualify as a libertarian. Nowhere in the definition does it say that libertarianism necessarily recognizes the need for government in many areas. I never said you weren't a libertarian, I just found it odd that you were advocating anti-trust laws and government regulation of the market. I'm not ignoring reality. Reality has shown that every government in history has either been overthrown or has grown past its original size. Out constitutional republic has been a failure in keeping government from growing to a size that conflicts with individual liberty. I do not think our Founding gained independence by being pragmatic with the English.

John Stossel's book Give Me a Break devotes an entire chapter on consumer reporting, and shows that while private consumer reporting has been successful, public consumer reporting has been a failure. In a nutshell, he states that while private consumer reporting has been accurate in an attempt to attract viewers, public consumer reporting has been a failure been the public broadcasting has been too afraid of offending anybody to provide accurate consumer reporting. One chooses a consumer reporter based upon his/her past accuracy. If they have been accurate in the past, they will attract viewers, if they have been blatantly biased towards their advertisers, fre people will watch them.


Believing in homestead principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle), I believe that unowned resources should be transfered to the first user. Thus, city roads would still be, in a sense, 'publicly' owned, since they would be jointly owned by the residents, similar to a community association. On the other hand, more rural areas' roads would be more likely to be privately owned, since fewer people live in those areas. With regards to crossing roads, both road companies would gian the others' customers if they crossed roads, thus both would make a profit.


No, I said that if you breach someone else's natural rights and are not able to provide sufficient restitution to them, you forfeit yours to them. Murderers cannot bring their victims back to life, so the only just punishment would be to let the family members decide what to do with the murderer.

I don't consider anarchism to be a school of libertarian thought, and I'm not alone in that. Wikipedia doesn't get to decide that for the rest of us. The things you advocate are such that you seem to want no government at all, so I'm inclined to consider you an anarchist and not a libertarian.


Yes you are. You ignore reality whenever it contradicts your beliefs.


Clearly you don't even know what the word pragmatic means.

prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk)
adj.
1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.

The founders didn't gain independence by dealing with a magical fairy land where independence would come by asking nicely, they knew it would take a war to win it because reality dictated that it was what it would take. The founders were very pragmatic in fact. The Declaration of Independence was done out of pragmatism - they wrote it in such a way that they could justify independence not to Britain but to the other monarchies who might have otherwise supported Britain for fear that their colonies might rebel. By recognizing the threat that those other nations could pose to the independence effort and heading it off, they were being pragmatic.

http://libertarianmajority.net/major-schools-of-libertarianism

And? I still disagree that anarchy should be considered one of  the many libertarian ideologies. Obviously there are those that disagree. Arguing "What is libertarianism" isn't going to get us anywhere. My points on the obvious ignorance of reality in your ideology still stand.

Standard monopoly theory as taught to undergraduates in Introduction to Microeconomics assumes government is a perfect agent who only has society's general interest in mind. There are enough insights from Public Choice theory to show that the choice is not between a market failure and a correction by government, but between a market failure and a government failure.

If Economics gets to be a science why not raciology or creationism or reptilians or the hollow earth theory?

Mr. Dibble, it would seem that of all the libertarians who have posted in this thread (me, you, Bono, dead0man, generic), you are the only one who finds it more worthwhile to debate me than to debate our statist opponents. For a supposed 'pragmatist', you seem to be doing more to be divisive than any other libertarian who has posted here. By the way, while we're talking about reality, could you please name one constitutional government that has remained strictly limited to its constitutional size?

If I had 5 people with submachine guns and you had a shotgun, I'd be able to enslave you. And why wouldn't slavery be permitted?

Slavery is a violation of man's right to life, liberty, and property. Also, the main difference between polycentric law and centralized government is that in the former, if you do not like the service of your protection agency, you can hire another one instead. You do not have that choice with the latter.

None of those other libertarians have posted against me here either, unless you count dead0man's Bill Gates comment which was meant as a joke. Since they don't seem to be siding with you, I don't see how you have a point here. Maybe they just don't want to bother debating you - did that thought ever occur to you?


What does that have to do with pragmatism? I think you still don't even understand what that word means. Pragmatism and divisiveness are not mutually exclusive concepts.


No, but I don't believe I ever claimed there was one, so do you have a point with this question? Since we're asking questions, can you even name one successful civilization that worked the way you've advocated?

Having looked Stossel up, it is shocking that a private consumer reporter would write a book explaining why private consumer reporters were good. So which watchdog will measure their past accuracy? Are there consumer reporters for consumer reporters?


Sounds like a distortion of the free market to me. On crossing roads, if I owned a monopoly on roads and someone was attempting to introduce a separate system, why would it be in my interest to let theirs cross mine? If I control the entire grid and someone is trying to introduce an alternative then I could just say no and maintain my monopoly. Alternatively, if there already are two road systems then we can band together as a cartel and collectively raise prices and there is nothing the public can do about it. That's a fact that is true of all industries that are dominated by a select few firms with an immense degree of market power.


That is simply slavery by another name.

You trying to be pragmatic by advocating a limited government, but that hasn't existed in all of history.

If you has competition for a job you have, and your competitor gives false information on television, would you even hesitate to expose him if it were false information?


Like I said, most roads today would be owned by 'road associations'. Only the roads in places nobody lived would be owned by private companies. Given that fact, if a road owner tried to raise costs, people could either cut back on their driving or start a competitor road. Either way, the road owner would lose money by overcharging his customers.


And, as I said in the other thread, how would you punish murderers?

Again, how do I determine which consumer reporter has the best record? Do we have consumer reporters for that? The fact is that these consumer reporters can't combat the interminable problem of perfect knowledge in the free market because they won't have it about the industries they cover themselves and their customers will not have perfect knowledge about which consumer reporter to choose.

Having not read the Stossel book I cannot comment on exactly what he says but I would assume that it is patently obvious that he would not criticise consumer reporters as a whole because he is one, although he may choose to single some out and attack them. If I cited government-produced material which argued that actually the government was a better arbiter in this matter then you would scream and cry that it was obvious the government would be saying this because it makes them look good. The tool works both ways.


What about the pavements? Are those not included in the road system; it's impossible that people cut back on using both because they have to get to work or to the shops to buy food and the such. It's also not just a question of money, it's also a question of space; there is hardly the space to introduce two parallel road systems.

Equally, how are these 'road associations' run? While I'm sure the wealthy could afford the upkeep of their roads or to implement a system of charging, that is hardly going to be the case in poorer areas.


As I've said there, I do not believe that punishment should solely be about retribution which is largely what it would end up as under your system because the decision of the family would hardly be made in a moment of calm. I think it is far better that we have a system that is at least to some extent impartial in the matter and also that there exists a prison system that serves simultaneously to protect the public, to institute a form of punishment for a crime but also to attempt to rehabilitate a criminal. On that note, how exactly would the prison system work under your system? Who pays for that exactly? Who runs that? Or would you just leave the criminals to those whose rights they transgressed?

My pragmatism is about limiting government where it's possible to do so. On the other hand you drone on and on about stuff that is so unlikely to happen it might as well be a fantasy.

First, I've already demonstrated that limited government is as much a fantasy as my system is, if not more so, since both systems have not been demonstrated before, and the former system is impossible. Second, while were on the subject of pragmatism, I seem to remember this wuote from last year:


And, of course, the end result was that Paul got ~300,000 more votes than the LP's most successful candidate and over $32 million, so I wouldn't be quick to shun beliefs as impossible, expecially when you consider Paul was willing to dive into deep libertarian issues such as non-interventionism and a free market in money. On the other hand, the current reformist candidate Bob Barr struggles to obtain ballot access and only has $430,000 right now, part of which is being spent on air conditioning.

No, you haven't. Your system is an absolute fantasy, mine at least has a chance to be at least partially implemented, even if only temporarily.


And as I recall he still lost as I predicted - he put on a nice performance, but he didn't win. Besides, the LP hasn't been reformed in such a way it can become a major party, so why would I expect it to do better than a well known Republican? BTW, I would mention that Paul attracted a lot of people who didn't agree with all his ideas (hell, many of them probably didn't know a lot of his ideas) - he was a strongly anti-Bush candidate, which in itself attracted many. And frankly, I think even Paul would think you're nuts given some of your ideas.

The likelihood of my system being implemented doesn't dismiss the morality of it. If I were an abolitionist in 1800, would you call my dream of abolishing slavery a "fantasy", whereas the system of abolishing the slave trade at least has a chance to be implemented? Just because the idea seems improbable at the time doesn't dismiss the morality of it. I'm not suggesting my ideas will be implemented tommorow, or even 50 years from now, but educating people is the first step. On the other hand, the libertarians who are willing to compromise principle in favor of electoral sucess are unlikely to ever reach their goals, as the Barr/Root campaign is trying so hard to prove right now.


He still came closer to electoral victory than any other LP candidate in history, including Ed "low-tax liberalism" Clark. Also, why dismiss the anti-establishment coalition that Paul was able to bring together in support of liberty? I doubt Paul would dismiss me as nuts for holding my ideas, considering his best friend (Lew Rockwell) holds the same philosophy.

No, because abolition would still be feasible. It would be a long road, but not an infinitely long one. Don't confuse my being pragmatic with being impatient - if I think what I want can be accomplished in the long term I'm still willing to go for it.


I don't believe I mentioned morality in this thread, so I don't see how that's important. Whether a system is "moral" or not is certainly a concern to me, but there's also the matter of whether or not it can work and whether or not society will ever be willing to implement it.


So if they know about the ideas, they'll just follow along like brainless zombies? Oh please. Don't expect people to just become mindless zombies who blindly follow your ideas just because they know about them. You'll never have enough people on board with your anarchist views of the world to get it implemented.


The Barr/Root campaign will fail because the Libertarian Party is currently too small of a political force to have success in the presidential race, not because of lack of principle. We've had "principled" Libertarian Party candidates for the most part since the party was founded, and that includes the time Ron Paul ran as the LP candidate. Each and every one of those principled guys lost. Frankly, I see the guys who make some compromises more likely to have at least some of their goals accomplished, while the principled people who can't convince enough people to agree with them will get absolutely nothing done.


And he still lost by a wide margin. And he wouldn't have had that success unless he compromised principle for electoral success by joining the corrupt Republican party. Since you believe him to be such a big success, I thank you for proving my point for me.

As far as Lew Rockwell, show me where he advocates private police and military for everyone while also saying there would be no free riders with that system.

This is, of course, subject to so many things like blacklisting. Also, it'd be impossible to ban slavery.

And who made you the ultimate arbitrer of what's feasible and what's not?


No, I meant educating people and convincing them that the non-agression principle is the only moral system you can have. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. To call all libertarians who follow this principle 'mindless zombies' completely ignores the point of education. Don't expect to tell me to believe that you were libertarian since the day you were born. Somewhere between your birth and now, you would have had to have someone to have educated you to libertarian principles.


Well, good luck with that. I'll be over here laughing when the ex-drug warrior gets the usual >0.5% on Election Day. In the meantime, if you're advocating growing the party (which BTW, I have not been associated with since Ruwart lost the nomination), don't be a hypocrit and purge people with more radical views the yourself.


Despite his being a Republican, Paul was willing to dwell into issues that you would rather not discuss, such as abolishing the income tax, having competing currencies, ending military interventionism abroad, relegalizing drugs, etc. As for Lew Rockwell, this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html) should do the trick.

Nobody, but I can use logic, reason, and facts to determine what is feasible and what isn't.


It's easy enough to say "non-aggression" is moral, but when it comes down to it that's an overly vague concept and many people will take it differently. My statement was more on the specifics of your beliefs.


I never called them such - I was claiming that human beings as a whole aren't going to mindlessly follow what you or anyone else teaches just because you want them to. All people live different lives, and their circumstances are different as well. There's enough people who live in circumstances that make hardcore libertarianism seem like an extremely bad idea to them that it would be impossible to implement hardcore libertarianism.


Again, I never made a different claim. Of course I wasn't always a libertarian, though my own circumstances probably helped me become one. My family had a rather libertarian attitude on social issues, though economics weren't as big a consideration - it wasn't all that political. When I became a libertarian initially I had a lot of zeal and believed in very hardcore libertarian ideals, but as time passed I discussed, debated, and researched and gradually moved towards a more moderate position.

But again, someone else given the same information might reach an entirely different conclusion on libertarianism.


I don't expect him to do all that well - I never said he would. He's not the type who has enough mass appeal to get elected even if we were a major party.


I have no intention of purging people with more radical views from the party, and again I never said I would. However, there is a problem in the party that I like to call the purist faction that would like to purge moderates such as myself from the party. I do think those people are holding us back quite a bit.

Also, just for the record, I don't expect we would ever grow to the size of the two major parties barring one of them collapsing due to some event we can't currently forsee. I would consider it a win if we could take 5-10% of the House of Representatives (arguably the easiest federal office to get elected to) - that would give us enough political force to encourage some fiscal responsibility as well as place some libertarian initiatives in bills before allowing them to pass.


Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a compromise in joining the Republicans in exchange for electoral success. I applaud his principle, and I think he's a good voice of conscience for the house, but unfortunately I don't see too many of people like him getting elected.

Love the title.  Reminded me of the Simpson's episode in which Homer and the stoners, the day after the weed legalization vote was scheduled, all woke up and remembered to vote.  The day after, that is.  D'oh!  That episode always reminds me of Libertarians.  They either wake up stoned and remember the Yes on Weed vote was yesterday, or they don't wake up to remember that the Yes on Guns vote is scheduled for today.  They don't wake up at all because they experienced some misfortune, usually on a trip involving alcohol and motorboats and firearms. 

Still, you gotta love 'em.  They're purists.  And I agree with the Libertarians over half the time.

By the way, in related news, I went down to the county courthouse today and changed my registration from Republican to unaffiliated ("no party" in Iowaspeak), just in case you were wondering about the avatar (or lack thereof).  Actually I was there for other reasons but I passed the "elections office" and thought about it.  Been meaning to do that.  Not that it matters.  It's mostly symbolic.  I can't imagine voting for John McCain even if I were still a registered Republican in November, but since I was there, what the hell.  They charged me a forty-two cent fee.  You believe that?!  Goddamned Democrats.  Apparently they have to mail me something.  I wrote them a check.  Fück 'em.  I didn't want to break a dollar.  Not that a dollar is worth all that much these days.  Goddamned Republicans.

I'm thinking Obama will probably siphon off my vote in November, but who knows, it may be Barr who siphons off my vote.  He seems pretty contrite these days.  Apologetic even.  "I don't know what I was thinking when I supported the surveillance...  I realize now that it was a mistake."  He may even convince me to vote for him.  I have to imagine that the nomination of John McCain was like adding Insult to Injury to many libertarian(-ish) republicans.  Whether or not it all helps Obama win isn't my concern.  Anyone but McCain, that's what I say.  Bloated gasbag he is, intent on bigger spending than even the 70s Democrats were.  And on more horrible stuff.  At least the democrats want to spend it on schools and hospitals.  If you have to waste money, at least give yourself the mental masturbatory effort so you'll think you're making a difference.  McCain wants to buy more tanks and young boys' blood.  Hell, he even thinks election campaigns ought to be publicly financed.  Bastard.  I think that unless youze guys manage to defeat yourselves--which isn't beyond the realm of possibility--then Obama should have it locked up.